HASAN ALI RAIHANY versus UOI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 1158 · Decided: 09-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HASAN ALI RAIHANY 
v. 
U.0.1 AND ORS. 
MARCH 9, 2006 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.) 
International law: 
Deportation-Petitioner entered India on Single Entry Permit granted 
C by Indian Embassy at Tehran-Apprehending that like earlier he might be 
deported suddenly without intimating to him reasons therefor-Held, since the 
petitioner has entered the country legally upon the Single Entry Permit, the 
competent authority must inform him the reasons for his deportation-If such 
a decision is taken the petitioner must be given an opportunity to submit his 
D representation against his proposed expulsion-The competent authority may 
thereafter consider his representation and pass appropriate order-Any order 
passed shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith-In case an adverse 
order is passed against the petitioner, it shall not be given effect for a period 
of seven days from the date of service of that order on the petitioner so that 
he may seek appropriate legal remedy, if so advised. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Sarbananda Songwal v. Union of India & Anr., [20051 5 SCC 665, 
relied on. 
National Himan Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & 
Anr., [199611 SCC 742, cited. 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 
No. 17 of 2006. 
Writ Petition (Criminal) 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
WITH 
Crl. M.P. No. 2098/06 in and SLP Crl. No ....... ./06. 
A.V. Savant, S.V. Deshpande and Mrs. Anuradha Rustogi for the 
Appellant. 
1158 
r 
+ 
1 
HASAN ALI RAIHANY v. U.0.1 [B.P. SINGH, J.] 
1159 
A. Sharan, ASG, U.U. Lalit, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Manish Tiwari, A 
Shishir Pinaki, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Sushma Suri and Vivek Sood for the 
Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. SINGH, J. 
B 
In W.P. (Crl.) No. 1712006: 
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of 
mandamus quashing the order cancelling the Residence Visa Permit by order 
dated 7th October, 2005. He has also prayed for directions to the respondent C 
to produce the papers relating to grant of Indian citizenship to him by 
naturalisation. He further prays that this Court may issue a writ of certiorari 
quashing and setting aside the oral direction or order of deportation passed 
by the respondents and allow the petitioner to enter the Indian territory. 
The case of the petitioner is that he was born in India to parents who D 
were Iranian citizens. He was educated in India and thereafter intended to 
stay in India. He applied for grant of Indian passport on I 5th July, 2003 in 
response whereto he was required to comply with certain formalities. It appears 
that on the night intervening 7th/8th October, 2005, the petitioner was deported 
to Tehran. His grievance is that he was never informed as to why such action E 
was taken against him. Be that as it may, he applied again to the Indian 
Embassy in Tehran to grant him entry visa enabling him to enter this country 
so that he could settle his pending matters in this country. According to the 
petitioner, he has been doing business in this country and, therefore, his 
sudden deportation has created complications for him, and it became absolutely 
necessary for him to come to India to settle those matters. A Single Entry F 
Permit was issued to the petitioner by the.- Indian Embassy in Iran which was 
valid for the period from 8th November, 2005 to 8th February, 2006. On that 
basis, the petitioner has re-entered this country. 
The petitioner states that he is being summoned to the Kurla Police 
Station every day and is being unnecessarily harassed. His suspicion is that G 
he may again be deported in the same manner as was done on the last 
occasion without intimating him the reasons why he is sought to be deported 
and without giving him an opportunity of being heard. 
We may observe that earlier, a Residential Permit was issued to the H 
1160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A petitioner which has been extended from time to time and which stood 
extended till 3rd December, 2007. However, while deporting him, the 
authorities cancelled the Residential Permit. 
Thus, the factual position as of today is that the petitioner has entered 
this country on the basis of a Single Entry Visa validity issued to him by the 
B Indian Embassy at Tehran. It is also stated that the fact that the petitioner had 
been deported from this country was mentioned in the application for grant 
of Entry Visa and that nothing was concealt:d. 
The question that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.